Living as an illegal resident means living in every day
fear: you cross the street when a policeman
approaches; you choose not to seek medical help as
you know there will be no financial assistance. It means
explaining to your child that they cannot travel abroad on
holiday because they do not have travel documents. It is
a denial of existence.
In Belgium, those without residence papers have been
given three weeks to submit their applications, and to
take the risk of announcing their presence. This is a
real risk for some, despite the
government’s generous
intentions which will benefit
others.
The Three Pillars Policy.
Following the 13th June 1999
elections a new majority
government came to power. It
announced its future
immigration policy under the heading of " Open Society ".
The policy included the following undertakings:
Bring in important changes to the Belgian Nationality
Code, in order to promote integration
Prepare realistic and humane asylum measures
Implement a procedure to regulate illegal immigrants
(the agreement mentions a series of criteria to guide the
independent organisation charged with processing
requests made by illegal immigrants).
Gradually, through successive political arrangements
and various documents, the government formulated a
framework for the new immigration strategy. However,
the resulting political agreements (24th September and
1st October 1999) are often imprecise. Moreover, they
are ambiguous and too tied to short-term political
calculations.
But the tone is becoming clearer: behind slogans felt to
be even-handed (" Humanity and Firmness " or " A
realistic and Reasonable Way ") some old spectres have
arisen (such as " an attractive welfare system "). In
addition, the question of deportation, omitted from the
July agreement, has clearly become a priority; it is
always ahead of regulations among the various fields of
work envisaged.
Since the law regulating the right to reside in Belgium
was proposed, the government’s overall approach has
been labelled ‘The Three Pillars’. The slogan has
frequently been used and has amounted to something of
a ‘magic formula’. The idea is said to be simple (or is
it simplistic ...) and easily understood; the Minister of
the Interior says we must :
– adopt a rapid and transparent procedure for asylum
which guarantees the rights of the defendant
– deport those who, at the end of the procedure, are
refused refugee status or found to be in the country
illegally
– regulate leave to remain by using time limits and deal
with each case using well-defined criteria. This will allow
the processing of a large number of people residing in
Belgium illegally.
The logic is clear. The new procedure for asylum seekers
is supposedly efficient and fast. However, its effect is
that that those who previously were able to obtain legal
status through staying in the country for a long period,
will no longer be able to do so: the efficient system will
get rid of them early on. Such people will immediately be
sent home, by force if necessary. The Minister of the
Interior hopes the new procedures " will come into force
when the situation becomes normal ". So, while waiting,
they clear the past surplus by regularising a few - the
products of past governmental errors (as far as the
Minister of the Interior is concerned " the present
lengthy asylum procedures and insufficient deportations
are the source of known clandestine operations. ")
That’s a bit much for a government that hopes to put in
place a " global " immigration strategy!
Certain ideas, present in the accord of the 7th July, or
put out in the heat of the summer, have already slipped
in. There is the idea of revised conditions for visas; that
of collaboration with the services for preparing formulae
for voluntary repatriation; as well as the idea of giving
interest-free loans to people deported after having
stayed for a long period in Belgium. Other measures are
not in evidence, as if they might tarnish the shiny new
policies. One might wonder about the scarce publicity
given to the reform of the Nationality Code, which is an
initiative to help the integration of foreigners into our
country.
Unfortunately, by shutting themselves into this
restrictive logic of the ‘Three Pillars’, they will not
manage to achieve an overall immigration policy that
responds to the challenges of today and tomorrow.
On this question of regulating the right to reside, one
word stands out in each debate: ’clarifying’. It was
repeated by the Minister of the Interior several times in
his presentation of the bill to the Senate. If one looks in
a dictionar y, one notes
that the word can also be
interpreted to mean
‘cleansing’, ‘disinfecting
and purifying’. No
comment...
However, in a political
framework that wishes to
be responsible, many
arguments could and
ought to have been
discussed in Parliament
(hospitality; the desire to
learn and be enriched;
tolerance; aid; even
demographic evolution;
experiences from travel
abroad; social security
costs...).
The Draft Bill before
Parliament: a painful
attempt at regulating the
situation. To speak of real
debate would be
presumptuous. The
government is frightened
of possible initiatives by
maverick MPs. It is torn
between the demands
and claims of the different
parts of its majority, and
has cleverly stifled all internal questioning. It has sent
out an imperious order: no parliamentarian in the
majority administration can put forward an amendment
for fear of opening Pandora’s box and having their
partners do the same. Obedience is quickly learnt in
Parliament, even when social debate ought to take place
in full session and not in secret cabinet meetings.
One can, however, note two significant advances: firstly
there is a desire regulate the right to reside; and
secondly, it has been recognised that a long stay in
Belgium, although illegal, may lead to the granting of
documentation. But the programme promised in the
government’s paper of 7th July is rather curtailed. In
spite of a promising make-up, the Commission will be
purely consultative and will not be able to be
approached directly by the person who wants their
papers regularised (the Commission Secretary, a civil
servant, filters the files).
Yet it remains a step forward in spite of everything and
in spite of doubtful criteria; legality will be possible for
some, but for others, an inestimable gain.
What Now ?. The Minister
of the Interior is talking of
a single operation.
According to him ‘there is
no question of a
permanent process. The
foundations of the
operation become
useless if the process of
regulating the right to
reside becomes
permanent’.
He is deceiving himself.
Nothing will be completed
in 2001, after which he
will have ‘sanitised’ the
situation and created a
new system for examining
asylum applications. This
government’s responses
only address short-term
problems.
Immigration is a natural
phenomenon; it has, and
will always exist. It is thus
for politicians to deal with
it and manage it as such.
They should not approach
it as criminal and
punishable (an approach
observed in the recent
declarations made by the
Minister of the Interior concerning strengthening
measures for forced repatriation).
A great deal of work needs to be done in order to
emerge from this destructive state and from the
constant confrontation that guides our administration
and justice system.
Benoît Van Der Meerschen,
Legal Counsel for the French-speaking
Belgian Human Rights League